The rise in new mums over 40: Number of older women giving birth overtakes under- 18s for first time

More women over 40 are becoming pregnant than girls under 18, the official count of pregnancies revealed yesterday.
Fast-rising levels of conception and birth to older women have meant that for the first time numbers of pregnant over-40s overtook teen pregnancies. There were 28,714 pregnancies among women over 40 in England and Wales in 2012, compared to 27,834 for girls under 18.

Conception rates among women in their late 30s also went up, and are now nearly double those of 1990. However there were fewer pregnancies overall, with numbers of conceptions in 2012 falling from 909,109 in 2011 to 884,748. The drop suggests that the current high UK birthrates may be set to come down in future years. The decrease in pregnancy rates was all among women under the age of 35.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568053/The-rise-new-mums-40-Number-pregnant-older-women-overtakes-18.html

I find this worrying. Babies born to mothers over 40 are more prone to birth defects for a start, and I have to wonder about the decrease in conceptions in the younger group. Is chemical/food additive pollution decreasing fertility in younger men?

Tess. wrote:More women over 40 are becoming pregnant than girls under 18, the official count of pregnancies revealed yesterday.
Fast-rising levels of conception and birth to older women have meant that for the first time numbers of pregnant over-40s overtook teen pregnancies.  There were 28,714 pregnancies among women over 40 in England and Wales in 2012, compared to 27,834 for girls under 18.

Conception rates among women in their late 30s also went up, and are now nearly double those of 1990.  However there were fewer pregnancies overall, with numbers of conceptions in 2012 falling from 909,109 in 2011 to 884,748.   The drop suggests that the current high UK birthrates may be set to come down in future years.  The decrease in pregnancy rates was all among women under the age of 35.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568053/The-rise-new-mums-40-Number-pregnant-older-women-overtakes-18.html

I find this worrying.  Babies born to mothers over 40 are more prone to birth defects for a start, and I have to wonder about the decrease in conceptions in the younger group.  Is chemical/food additive pollution decreasing fertility in younger men?

There are ratios and then there are numbers attached to those ratios. If the births to young women have collapsed then a modest increase in older women having children can produce worrying statistics.

The spin and it is always spin with The DM can be placed by ignoring the relevant numbers. They carefully avoid publishing the numbers for under 18 in prior years. Your point though right for the higher risks ignores the fact that despite the risks people want children when they can afford them.

It is the problem for responsible people having to wait until they can afford them. Those who stick to benefits don't have to bother.

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Tess. wrote:More women over 40 are becoming pregnant than girls under 18, the official count of pregnancies revealed yesterday.
Fast-rising levels of conception and birth to older women have meant that for the first time numbers of pregnant over-40s overtook teen pregnancies.  There were 28,714 pregnancies among women over 40 in England and Wales in 2012, compared to 27,834 for girls under 18.

Conception rates among women in their late 30s also went up, and are now nearly double those of 1990.  However there were fewer pregnancies overall, with numbers of conceptions in 2012 falling from 909,109 in 2011 to 884,748.   The drop suggests that the current high UK birthrates may be set to come down in future years.  The decrease in pregnancy rates was all among women under the age of 35.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568053/The-rise-new-mums-40-Number-pregnant-older-women-overtakes-18.html

I find this worrying.  Babies born to mothers over 40 are more prone to birth defects for a start, and I have to wonder about the decrease in conceptions in the younger group.  Is chemical/food additive pollution decreasing fertility in younger men?

There are ratios and then there are numbers attached to those ratios. If the births to young women have collapsed then a modest increase in older women having children can produce worrying statistics.

The spin and it is always spin with The DM can be placed by ignoring the relevant numbers. They carefully avoid publishing the numbers for under 18 in prior years. Your point though right for the higher risks ignores the fact that despite the risks people want children when they can afford them.

It is the problem for responsible people having to wait until they can afford them. Those who stick to benefits don't have to bother.

In view of your reply I googled for the stats.  I got this from the Government's own site:

"Conception summary tables, England and Wales (provisional)
Department: Office for National Statistics
This publication has been discontinued as a result of the review of conception statistics."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/births-and-fertility/conception-and-fertility-rates

Even more worrying!  What are the Government trying to hide?

Info prior to the stats being stopped:
http://www.qualitywatch.org.uk/indicator/conception-rates-under-18-year-olds#

Tess. wrote:More women over 40 are becoming pregnant than girls under 18, the official count of pregnancies revealed yesterday.
Fast-rising levels of conception and birth to older women have meant that for the first time numbers of pregnant over-40s overtook teen pregnancies.  There were 28,714 pregnancies among women over 40 in England and Wales in 2012, compared to 27,834 for girls under 18.

Conception rates among women in their late 30s also went up, and are now nearly double those of 1990.  However there were fewer pregnancies overall, with numbers of conceptions in 2012 falling from 909,109 in 2011 to 884,748.   The drop suggests that the current high UK birthrates may be set to come down in future years.  The decrease in pregnancy rates was all among women under the age of 35.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568053/The-rise-new-mums-40-Number-pregnant-older-women-overtakes-18.html

I find this worrying.  Babies born to mothers over 40 are more prone to birth defects for a start, and I have to wonder about the decrease in conceptions in the younger group.  Is chemical/food additive pollution decreasing fertility in younger men?

I find it a tad selfish for women in their forties to have kids, they won't be exactly young when the bairn is hitting their teens...not too me this the health risks you mention....


Some guys on here may not have it in them to to answer the latter of your question!

(But not me).
  

I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

I think kids being born into families like that of Karen Matthews are more of a problem. The state pay for broods of kids and the likes of Matthews have more kids to get benefits. They then go onto breed more generations of underclass.

Fred Bloggs wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

I think kids being born into families like that of Karen Matthews are more of a problem. The state pay for broods of kids and the likes of Matthews have more kids to get benefits. They then go onto breed more generations of underclass.

Good point, but that's a different matter.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:


I think kids being born into families like that of Karen Matthews are more of a problem. The state pay for broods of kids and the likes of Matthews have more kids to get benefits. They then go onto breed more generations of underclass.

Good point, but that's a different matter.

It is but the link is controlling conception. If we can't control conception by limiting allowances for kids we have no chance of controlling conception by older mothers. If allownces were paid for the first two or three children for example do you think the likes of Matthews would have a brood?

It is difficult to tell a woman of x age she can't conceive if she has been trying for years.

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

Most likely impossible to impose legal limits on age Andy, but I do agree with you in general , ken.

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

Most likely impossible to impose legal limits on age Andy, but I do agree with you in general , ken.

Oh I know - that's the way it is with these things - same with how many kids people can spew out.

It is the UK, after all.

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

40

the limit should be 2 that get paid for........................40 kids................................to many man too many   

maybe all those headstrong, career pushers, i'm as good as any man type, realised they are women and kids are great and they missed out nearly...  

gerber wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

40

the limit should be 2 that get paid for........................40 kids................................to many man too many   

40?!   

To be honest when people choose to have their children is no business but their own.  I do think that it's perhaps irresponsible to have fertility treatment when you have gone through the natural menopause (not early menopause I hasten to add).  It doesn't seem fair to the child if you might not be around to raise him/her, it would seem selfish in those circumstances.

There are situations when people have tried for years to have kids and finally have that longed for child, who'd deny them that happiness?

What business has the government in telling anyone when they can have a child?

Tess. wrote:More women over 40 are becoming pregnant than girls under 18, the official count of pregnancies revealed yesterday.
Fast-rising levels of conception and birth to older women have meant that for the first time numbers of pregnant over-40s overtook teen pregnancies.  There were 28,714 pregnancies among women over 40 in England and Wales in 2012, compared to 27,834 for girls under 18.

Conception rates among women in their late 30s also went up, and are now nearly double those of 1990.  However there were fewer pregnancies overall, with numbers of conceptions in 2012 falling from 909,109 in 2011 to 884,748.   The drop suggests that the current high UK birthrates may be set to come down in future years.  The decrease in pregnancy rates was all among women under the age of 35.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568053/The-rise-new-mums-40-Number-pregnant-older-women-overtakes-18.html

I find this worrying.  Babies born to mothers over 40 are more prone to birth defects for a start, and I have to wonder about the decrease in conceptions in the younger group.  Is chemical/food additive pollution decreasing fertility in younger men?

Tess I had Jasmine when I was 41. I met a lot of over-40's mums and spoke to midwives about birth defects etc. and yes, your chances do increase but it is still not too common because of the really great scans and tests that can now do.

I'm not going to give young mums a hard time but I do know that older mums seem to make for more chilled and relaxed children as the mothers are more settled emotionally, physically and financially. We have more patience, experience and time!

Don't knock it. I think it's a good thing.

I am 44 now, and I am a very young 44, in good shape and very happy. I'd love to have another one (I'd have had loads if I hadn't suffered three miscarriages over the years), but it's off-putting when people mention age. Makes me feel too old   

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I think there should be legal limits on it.

40 is the max, I'd say.

At 50 you're too old to be doing things with your kids and there's more chance of defects.

That goes for both the mother and father.

Most likely impossible to impose legal limits on age Andy, but I do agree with you in general , ken.

Well boys I was 41 when I had my daughter and can I tell you something?
I am fitter and healthier than most mums I their twenties. That's right.
I cook proper food and I am more patient, more prepared to stay home at night and not miss partying, I am financially secure and pour so much time and effort into my children that both of them passed their two-year checks and got told they didn't need to be seen until five years old as they surpassed every test!
Who taught them?
Me.

My daughters goes to a playgroup and is the only one there who can talk not only in sentences, but paragraphs.

The twenty something mums love their kids but they sit on their mobiles and moan about the dad's.

Ask les. He's met both my children  ::D::